Zones of Contention

Saving the Gaviota coast from urban sprawl will require some consensus

02/25/01

Mike Lunsford, President Gaviota Coast Conservancy

People used to tell me that urban sprawl on the Gaviota Coast was inevitable. They don't say that any more. Yet, permanent protection is still far from certain.

During the '70s, an attempt to develop 1,500 homes on the El Capitan Ranch met with strong community opposition in the form of a county-wide referendum. That referendum led to zoning changes that prevented classic, leap-frog urban sprawl up the Gaviota Coast. Minimum parcel size was increased, and land use designations favored agriculture. We owe a debt of gratitude to those alert, caring citizens. They are part of the reason why the Gaviota Coast is what it is today.

If we are to prevent urban sprawl, we must understand the forces that drive it. You might say that urban sprawl is the by-product of market forces overcoming protective planning policies. These market forces derive from an ever-increasing population competing for desirable land. This, in turn, supports land speculation; the process of investing in land today for its appreciated value tomorrow. We can reasonable expect the forces of urban sprawl to be more acute on the south coast of Santa Barbara County than it may be in the middle of Kansas for instance.

For more than the last 100 years, Southern California has been a magnet for human settlement. The westward movement, and the gold rush of the 19th Century set the pace that continues to today. Between 1900 and 1990, the population of Los Angeles doubled five times, forever altering the landscape to what we see today. These same forces are still at work and threaten the future of the Gaviota Coast.

We, and our neighbors on the Gaviota Coast, depend on the agricultural zoning to protect the serene settings, and the pastoral lifestyle of this unique coastline. But, land use zoning is not permanent. It is politically derived, and politically vulnerable. What would happen if the agricultural zoning were changed to allow the urban area to expand up the coast?

The history of Southern California's urban sprawl shows that agricultural land is the hardest hit. Once the land speculation machine was cranked up in the early part of last century, it took just 30 years for the agricultural acreage throughout Los Angeles County to be reduced by 97%. (From 300,000 acres in 1939, to 10,000 acres in 1970.) The loss of agricultural land to urban sprawl is legendary, and continues to happen all over the west. Economics drives that conversion, and economics will eventually drive the conversion of the Gaviota Coast if we're not prepared.

We cannot blame anyone for the economic realities underlying urban sprawl. These are the realities we live with. But, there is a difference between protecting your personal financial interests, and intentionally acting to enhance your interests at the expense of the public interest. For example, protecting your existing legal development rights under current, widely-supported public policy is one thing, but constantly challenging such policy in order to enrich yourself, is another.

As we pursue the goal of preventing urban sprawl on the Gaviota Coast, it is important to keep our eyes on the big picture, and not get side tracked with false issues. Issues which are inaccurately characterized by opponents and only serve to distract the public debate from the real issues.

A case in point is the effort to portray the land conservation effort as a small group of interlopers invading the privacy of landowners. We should all respect a landowner's privacy, and property rights, but legitimate discussion on land use and the future of the Gaviota Coast is appropriate and necessary. In America, land use policy is rooted in the constitutional power of the government to protect the public welfare. As such, it is important for all citizens to be involved in the public discussion on these matters. Our collective future depends on it.

There are already signs that the economics of urban sprawl is having its way on the Gaviota Coast. Two very suggestive indicators are the lack of participation in the agricultural preserve program, and the recent law suit by large landowners on the Gaviota Coast to protect their "potential development rights."

The agricultural preserve program adjusts the tax rate of land down to the agricultural value, saving the landowner a significant amount of money. This provides an incentive to keeping the land in agricultural production. However, the land must be kept in the program for the contract period, which is at least 10 years.

It is revealing to note that, according to the public record, the vast majority of the acreage between the urban limit line and Refugio Canyon is NOT in the agricultural preserve program. Land which is not in the program includes lower Winchester Canyon, next to the urban limit line; Eagle Canyon, just west of Rancho Embarcadero; Naples, and the old Arco coastal property just west of Eagle Canyon; that part of Dos Pueblos Ranch, south of Highway 101; the entire Las Varas Ranch, just west of Dos Pueblos; the El Capitan Ranch; and portions of theTajiguas Ranch, west of Refugio.

Recently the News-Press reported that the owners of the Eagle Canyon Ranch; the Dos Pueblos Ranch; the Las Varas Ranch; and the Tajiguas Ranch sued the County to protect their "potential development rights." Keep in mind that these are not existing rights. They are speculative, future rights which may accrue from changes in zoning laws, producing a windfall for these landowners. The law suit was triggered by the County enacting a very rational and important new land use policy. One that helps distinguish between legal lots and those unintentionally formed on maps from sequential, unrelated surveys.

I suppose there could be other motives at work here, but the law suits in connection with the lack of participation in the agricultural preserve program is very suggestive that the motive is something other than long-term agriculture.

As long as the potential rewards for land speculation are present, we have to expect that there will be pressure to develop. The Las Varas Ranch is a good example. It was purchased in the early '80s for about $10 million. It was recently put on the market for $45 million. Just holding the land produced a gross profit of 350% in about 20 years. Agricultural operations may not be viable at that price, so the pressure for other uses grows.

Let there be no doubt that land speculation will eventually drive urban sprawl up the Gaviota Coast if the community doesn't initiate methods to permanently prevent it. But, any method that permanently prevents development may be seen by those with development intentions as a threat to their "potential development rights."

This opposition is certainly predictable. Yet, what form this opposition takes may not be as predictable. You can't expect a landowner interested in land speculation to stand up and say, "I oppose a park service designation because it may prevent me from developing my land." Or, "I oppose the County's agricultural zoning because I can make more money developing my land." These are not viable political arguments. What is more likely is the outcry of, "government should just leave us alone," or, "our property rights are being infringed, or, the park service is bad."

We certainly should not expect landowners to give up property values. However, selling land for residential development is not the only way to retrieve its value. Where there is both a benefit to the landowner and the public, it justifies the use of public funds to purchase development rights or the land itself. This is what conservation and agricultural easements are about, willing sellers pursuing their own goals in an alternative market place.

The Conservancy has embraced a number of strategies that offer permanent protection. In addition to voluntary conservation easements and land sales, the transferring of development credits, and new entrepreneurial approaches, we support a partnership with the National Park Service (NPS) to study the possibilities of federal assistance. However, the prospects of federal involvement sits differently with different sectors of the community.

Recently, after NPS began their feasibility study, we have seen the emergence of two opposition groups; the Coastal Stewardship Council (CSC,) and the Hollister Ranch Owners Association (HROA.) Each group says that while they support land conservation on the Gaviota Coast, they oppose NPS assistance.

In view of the potential benefits of the NPS participation in this project, what factual basis exists for rejecting their assistance? The answer lies in the fact that members of these groups feel they have something personal to lose with an NPS presence. And, herein lies a key distinction in point of view. The standard of measure for what's good for the community is different if you are a landowner in the project area thinking you have something personal to lose.

While altruistic activists measure things by their associated benefits to the community, our neighbors on the Gaviota Coast sincerely fear that the benefit to the community may mean a corresponding sacrifice of their independence, privacy, and peaceful enjoyment of their property. Most of them also love the Gaviota Coast the way it is, but their fear has produced a reaction.

The Hollister Ranch Owners Association has levied an assessment on parcel owners, raising $300,000 for the purpose of fighting any form of National Park System designation, regardless of its potential benefit to the public. They hired lobbyists in Washington, D.C., and some Hollister Ranch owners are lending support to other opponents. If they succeed, they will have foreclosed the opportunity to find some form of beneficial compromise that both protects their interests and provides lasting protection for our public resources.

It is unclear exactly why they have unilaterally taken such a strong position so early. They may fear that any National Park Service presence, however limited or benign, would add further weight to the call for public access on the coastline they now control. Some of the owners have stated their fear of hostile condemnation, and have portrayed the feasibility study as the engine of an unstoppable federal freight train that will inevitably take their land from them. These fears need to be addressed.

I guess where you stand on this issue depends on who you believe. If you distrust the motives and power of government, you may not accept my perception of the National Park Service. But, due to my early and intimate involvement in this project, I am well situated to give you an insight into their thinking and intentions.

First of all, I have seen a sincere and consistent effort on the part of the NPS staff to understand the local communities vision of the future of the Gaviota Coast. They have repeatedly expressed their support and enthusiasm for our overall conservation objectives, even to the point of subordinating the role of NPS to local alternatives. In fact, their feasibility study will produce a local, non-park service alternative for the community to consider.

You might say that it is not so much the attitudes of the individual study team that matters, because we are dealing with a government entity that has a life of its own, and is governed by a set of ever-changing rules and personnel. This is true. However, my twenty-five years as a State Park Ranger has taught me that while an agency's people change, and its policies evolve, the mission statement remains constant. The mission statement is founded in the legislative intent of the enabling legislation, and articulates the philosophical, and legal foundation for the agency.

The National Park Service is in the business of preserving the natural and cultural heritage of regions all over the country. However, to justify their involvement, they must first determine whether or not the values at stake arise to the level of national significance. If they do, we qualify for federal assistance in protecting them on behalf of that national interest.

The Coastal Stewardship Council (CSC) circulated a letter within the project area stating that the sole purpose of CSC is to, "stop the Department of the Interior form establishing a National Park designation on the southwest flank of the Santa Ynez Mountains." The CSC is composed mostly of concerned landowners on the Gaviota Coast. They're concerned about their future, just like everyone else. However, it is unclear just what their vision of the future is, and actions speak louder than words.

The CSC has run two full page advertisements. One in the New-Press last Fall, and one in a recent edition of the Independent. Both ads displayed a photographic image under a message of hysterical, exaggerated language, containing gross misrepresentations. I found the disregard for factual accuracy disturbing. Reasonable minds can differ on the same issues, and we should respect the validity of varying points of view, but honest public debate requires at least an attempt at factual accuracy.

Judge for yourself. Is it likely that the Gaviota Coast would attract the 14 million visitors of a Golden Gate National Recreation Area? A significant number of the attractions of the Golden Gate NRA are situated within the San Francisco urban area; Alcatraz Island, Cliff House, Crissy Field, Fort Baker, Fort Mason, Fort Point, Ocean Beach, Presidio of San Francisco, Surto Heights, etc. and bear no logical relationship to visitation on our rural coast. Comparisons are only useful if the items being compared are similar.

Even Pt. Reyes National Seashore is not a perfect comparison. Visitation at Pt. Reyes is 2.3 million per year, and it's located 30 miles from San Francisco. By comparison, Gaviota is located 30 miles from Santa Barbara, with major population centers more than 100 miles away. It is reasonable to assume that a Gaviota Coast National Seashore would bring a modest increase in visitation over time, but just how much needs study. This is one of the items we expect the feasibility study and its environmental impact statement to address.

The feasibility study will not automatically result in the establishment of a National Park System designation, only congress has that power. Most feasibility studies do not result in designations, for a range of reasons. Because a designation requires a political majority, it will require consensus building. It will require the local community to articulate what features a land conservation plan for the Gaviota Coast should have and to determine whether or not there is an appropriate role for the National Park Service.

If the National Park Service could be involved in a manner that; 1) does not involve hostile condemnation of land; 2) that encourages the continuation of agriculture on private lands; 3) carefully builds in safeguards to prevent adverse visitor impacts on private lands and public resources; and 4) helps create an economic alternative to land speculation as a way for land owners to realize the value of their land; wouldn't it be useful to at least include them in the planning and dialogue? That is what the feasibility study does. Yet, the opponents want to stop the feasibility study.

Whether or not there is eventually an NPS role in the land conservation effort on the Gaviota Coast, there is almost universal agreement that maintaining the agricultural, and natural character of the project area is important. But, that will require a shared vision of the future, and agreement on the methods to achieve that vision. This will, of course, take cooperation.

Recently, an effort to form a local visioning group known as "Common Ground" has been initiated with the encouragement of Supervisor Gail Marshall. The steering committee for this effort has continued to struggle with disagreement, precluding any meaningful accomplishment after five meetings. This process has potential for getting people from a variety of points of view to work together, but it has been crippled by the fear some of the participants have of the National Park Service.

While it is uncertain whether or not this group will eventually move forward and develop some framework for cooperation, the Gaviota Coast Conservancy supports a local visioning process through collaboration, as well as the feasibility study. Both are necessary to help clarify the possibilities. You can help by encouraging these efforts. Let Congresswoman, Lois Capps, and your County Supervisor know you support both the NPS feasibility study and the community visioning process. You can find their numbers and addresses in the phone book, and also in the Voices section of the Sunday edition of the News-Press.

If you have questions or comments, or if you would like to arrange a presentation for your group, you can reach us at (805) 563-7976, or at gavcoast@silcom.com. Our mailing address is P. O. Box 1099, Goleta, CA 93116.